pedrop357:Bomb Head Mohammed: When I go fly aerobatics, I don't pretend its making my life safer. You pretend that guns do make your life safer. See the difference?

Parachutes make sky diving safer, but I'd bet that on a huge nationwide skydiving day involving hundreds of thousands of people skydiving, you might see two or even three accidents on that day, which is more than you typically see on any other day in skydiving.

Again, these incidents happened at gun shows, not hunting trips or firing ranges.

So it would be like your skydiver having an accident while packing his 'chute.

pedrop357:Znuh: Which, is still less performance than an F1 car. Going from a 425HP muscle car to something with 1500HP is worlds, worlds apart.

So, no. Your analogy fails. And the only reason an F1 Driver can handle something so awesome, is because they've trained for it.

Anyone can pretty much do anything. But doing certain things without learning and schooling yourself result in catastrophe. I'm sure you're great with brain surgery because you've put band-aids on your skin, too.

You're still not addressing the point you started out with-namely that an F1 can't be made street legal (and that there exists some 'racing license' for driving one). BTW, there are 1000HP street legal cars. They suck for daily driving, but they're street legal.

You talked about people stepping into more gun than they could handle and used F1 cars as a (bad) example, I pointed out that driver licensing does not have a capability requirement now, and you have yet to point out any law or regulation that sets a power/HP/acceleration threshold for drivers licenses.

So, you missed the point about:

*Truckers have different licensing reqs

*As do Motorcyclists

*And the point that with great power, comes great responsibility.

Having built a 1100 horse, ten second, big-block, twin turbo Chevelle, and having driven it quite a bit on the Hot Rod Power Tour, I can say that yep, that's street legal. I can also say that nobody else but a handful of skilled people can drive it.

Secondly, that car is fast. But it's nothing compared to F1. Apples to Oranges. Hate to break it to you, but everything in life isn't just handed to you, there's reasons you have to earn things. And in other cases, laws have been put down because people didn't think.

And yes, if you haven't been schooled in the basics, I'd say you're inexperienced. I wouldn't let you near a pop-gun. Prove it, get licensed. Fail? Too bad, try again. Pass? Go for it.

As Dirty Harry said, a Man's got to know his limitations. If you're not up to snuff, don't whine, grow.

Znuh:pedrop357: Znuh: Which, is still less performance than an F1 car. Going from a 425HP muscle car to something with 1500HP is worlds, worlds apart.

So, no. Your analogy fails. And the only reason an F1 Driver can handle something so awesome, is because they've trained for it.

Anyone can pretty much do anything. But doing certain things without learning and schooling yourself result in catastrophe. I'm sure you're great with brain surgery because you've put band-aids on your skin, too.

You're still not addressing the point you started out with-namely that an F1 can't be made street legal (and that there exists some 'racing license' for driving one). BTW, there are 1000HP street legal cars. They suck for daily driving, but they're street legal.

You talked about people stepping into more gun than they could handle and used F1 cars as a (bad) example, I pointed out that driver licensing does not have a capability requirement now, and you have yet to point out any law or regulation that sets a power/HP/acceleration threshold for drivers licenses.

So, you missed the point about:

*Truckers have different licensing reqs

*As do Motorcyclists

*And the point that with great power, comes great responsibility.

Having built a 1100 horse, ten second, big-block, twin turbo Chevelle, and having driven it quite a bit on the Hot Rod Power Tour, I can say that yep, that's street legal. I can also say that nobody else but a handful of skilled people can drive it.

Secondly, that car is fast. But it's nothing compared to F1. Apples to Oranges. Hate to break it to you, but everything in life isn't just handed to you, there's reasons you have to earn things. And in other cases, laws have been put down because people didn't think.

And yes, if you haven't been schooled in the basics, I'd say you're inexperienced. I wouldn't let you near a pop-gun. Prove it, get licensed. Fail? Too bad, try again. Pass? Go for it.

As Dirty Harry said, a Man's got to know his limitations. If you're ...

While some guns are harder to control, a rifle firing a .223 isn't one of them. A child could handle the kick from one, and many children do. You haven't been very clear on what you mean by "high performance" in the context of fire arms. Is a Benelli shotgun "high performance"? How about a HiPoint pistol? Is any semi-automatic weapon "high performance"? Or is it an issue of caliber?

Having built a 1100 horse, ten second, big-block, twin turbo Chevelle, and having driven it quite a bit on the Hot Rod Power Tour, I can say that yep, that's street legal. I can also say that nobody else but a handful of skilled people can drive it.

Secondly, that car is fast. But it's nothing compared to F1. Apples to Oranges. Hate to break it to you, but everything in life isn't just handed to you, there's reasons you have to earn things. And in other cases, laws have been put down because people didn't think.

And yes, if you haven't been schooled in the basics, I'd say you're inexperienced. I wouldn't let you near a pop-gun. Prove it, get licensed. Fail? Too bad, try again. Pass? Go for it.

As Dirty Harry said, a Man's got to know his limitations. If you're not up to snuff, don't whine, grow.

So you're not just a moron, you're a cliche spewing moron.

Yes, there ARE separate licensing requirements for vehicles over a certain weight rating, length, or relating to the weight and length of a towed trailer.

BUT, a person can drive any vehicle in that length/weight class, power and acceleration are not a factor.

This is the same with standard (Class C in my state) driver licensing. A person who learns to drive in a corolla can drive any car they want in that class, and boy is that class varied. From smart cars to challenger SRTs, Subaru STis, to Full size F350s, Tahoes, Wranglers, anything under 26000lb and they can tow anything under 10,000lb.

M endorsement lets you drive all motorcycles, from the a 35 HP POS to some 400HP 8 second monstrosity

I'll ask my question again: DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT PEOPLE ARE BUYING BIGGER/MORE POWERFUL GUNS THAN THEY CAN HANDLE?

Confabulat: What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size....

I dont mind the "we should have tighter restrictions on guns" crowd. While I think they are for the most part farking idiots and naive, they compare not to the penis crowd. If your argument consists of talking about your dick, on any subject besides the size of your dick, you are automatically wrong

trappedspirit:Znuh: If you're going to fire an insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is, then you have to be certed and pass those certs to first, own and secondly, where you use the weapon has to be restricted.

Insanely powerful? Really? I realize that is a subjective ruling but still, what are the grades up from 'insanely powerful'?

trappedspirit:Znuh: If you're going to fire an insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is, then you have to be certed and pass those certs to first, own and secondly, where you use the weapon has to be restricted.

Insanely powerful? Really? I realize that is a subjective ruling but still, what are the grades up from 'insanely powerful'?

Nice catch. I got hung up on his BS about F1 cars and 'racing licenses'

If an Ar-15 is insanely powerful, I wonder where a standard deer rifle fits in. I wonder what a .50BMG or .416 Barrett qualifies as.

GUTSU:trappedspirit: Znuh: If you're going to fire an insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is, then you have to be certed and pass those certs to first, own and secondly, where you use the weapon has to be restricted.

Insanely powerful? Really? I realize that is a subjective ruling but still, what are the grades up from 'insanely powerful'?

pedrop357:GUTSU: trappedspirit: Znuh: If you're going to fire an insanely powerful weapon, which the AR-15 is, then you have to be certed and pass those certs to first, own and secondly, where you use the weapon has to be restricted.

Insanely powerful? Really? I realize that is a subjective ruling but still, what are the grades up from 'insanely powerful'?

Gdalescrboz:I dont mind the "we should have tighter restrictions on guns" crowd. While I think they are for the most part farking idiots and naive, they compare not to the penis crowd. If your argument consists of talking about your dick, on any subject besides the size of your dick, you are automatically wrong

It just occurred to me. This is the 'adult' conversation we're supposed to be having.

We all seemed to think 'adult' meant mature, rational, etc.

They meant adult the way pornographic movies and strip clubs are called 'adult entertainment'

Gdalescrboz:Confabulat: What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size....

I dont mind the "we should have tighter restrictions on guns" crowd. While I think they are for the most part farking idiots and naive, they compare not to the penis crowd. If your argument consists of talking about your dick, on any subject besides the size of your dick, you are automatically wrong

I never learned to read because I have a gargantuan penis. All ignorance can be explained away by talking about your penis.

Bomb Head Mohammed:fullerton: meanwhile, three cars crashed at the car show. an airplane crashed at an air show and a marathon runner died running a marathon.

When I go fly aerobatics, I don't pretend its making my life safer. You pretend that guns do make your life safer. See the difference?

The problem is that people often feel this need to justify their choices. Those who want to restrict/control others often demand other people justify their choices. People need to just refuse to play this stupid game.

Aerobatic flying isn't exactly a common hobby and the airshow crashes are spread pretty far apart so there really isn't much in the way of calls to ban it and demanding people justify their hobby of aerobatic flying. However if control freaks were to set out to ban it people who enjoyed it would likely fall into the trap and try to justify it in some way. They might say it makes them safer pilots for normal flying or something should abnormal conditions arise. It's human nature. That's why that Morgan guy on CNN keeps demanding people tell him why they 'need' an AR-15. It's just social mind trick. It is to put the person who wants to keep doing whatever it is he enjoys on the defensive. Often to make him sound like a nutcase to all the people who aren't interested in that particular thing.

For instance, what if you were demanded to justify owning an automobile because someone in an organized race lost control and crashed into some spectators? Or because some illegal street racer plowed into a school bus. Or because some drunk driver killed a group of teenagers in another car? That's what ordinary gun owners are facing at the moment.

Gdalescrboz:Confabulat: What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size....

I dont mind the "we should have tighter restrictions on guns" crowd. While I think they are for the most part farking idiots and naive, they compare not to the penis crowd. If your argument consists of talking about your dick, on any subject besides the size of your dick, you are automatically wrong

Confabulat:Gdalescrboz: Confabulat: What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size....

I dont mind the "we should have tighter restrictions on guns" crowd. While I think they are for the most part farking idiots and naive, they compare not to the penis crowd. If your argument consists of talking about your dick, on any subject besides the size of your dick, you are automatically wrong

Good to hear you take penises so seriously.

Like me, he was confused by all of you who claimed to want an 'adult' conversation. we thought adult=mature, rational It turns out adult=dick talk.

jaytkay:Guns don't kill people. If you want to kill someone you will find a way.

That's why the US Marines gave up firearms years ago.

Right. That's why the Marines aren't even paid or trained anymore, because the guns do all the actual "killing". Really the only reason the Marine is to sell grey t-shirts that say "GUNS" to Real Americans*.

leadmetal:Bomb Head Mohammed: fullerton: meanwhile, three cars crashed at the car show. an airplane crashed at an air show and a marathon runner died running a marathon.

When I go fly aerobatics, I don't pretend its making my life safer. You pretend that guns do make your life safer. See the difference?

The problem is that people often feel this need to justify their choices. Those who want to restrict/control others often demand other people justify their choices. People need to just refuse to play this stupid game.

Aerobatic flying isn't exactly a common hobby and the airshow crashes are spread pretty far apart so there really isn't much in the way of calls to ban it and demanding people justify their hobby of aerobatic flying. However if control freaks were to set out to ban it people who enjoyed it would likely fall into the trap and try to justify it in some way. They might say it makes them safer pilots for normal flying or something should abnormal conditions arise. It's human nature. That's why that Morgan guy on CNN keeps demanding people tell him why they 'need' an AR-15. It's just social mind trick. It is to put the person who wants to keep doing whatever it is he enjoys on the defensive. Often to make him sound like a nutcase to all the people who aren't interested in that particular thing.

For instance, what if you were demanded to justify owning an automobile because someone in an organized race lost control and crashed into some spectators? Or because some illegal street racer plowed into a school bus. Or because some drunk driver killed a group of teenagers in another car? That's what ordinary gun owners are facing at the moment.

well yes, i demand that someone should justify owning a gun if they're in an organized gun race and they kill some spectators. or if an illegal gun racer shot up a school bus. or because a drunk gun owner killed a group of teenagers in another car. oh wait, cars have nothing to do with guns, and if you're using that as a parallel then you're being dishonest and you know it. i keep lurking in these gun threads and all i see over and over is a bunch of guys who like guns trying to justify their ownership of them without ever providing any solid reasons apart from "i like them" or using a skewed supreme court decision in which the conservative majority went out of their way to stick it to the other side.

so my opinion is this, grow the fark up. i like things that are illegal and other people do too, but quit farking whining when people have a problem with it because idiot farks use that thing that you like to do awful things. you may be responsible about your hobby, but if one can measure your sanity by gauging the shrillness of your defense then let me tell you, you're being unjustifiably traditional and unjustifiably ridiculous.

knight_on_the_rail:well yes, i demand that someone should justify owning a gun if they're in an organized gun race and they kill some spectators. or if an illegal gun racer shot up a school bus. or because a drunk gun owner killed a group of teenagers in another car. oh wait, cars have nothing to do with guns, and if you're using that as a parallel then you're being dishonest and you know it. i keep lurking in these gun threads and all i see over and over is a bunch of guys who like guns trying to justify their ownership of them without ever providing any solid reasons apart from "i like them" or using a skewed supreme court decision in which the conservative majority went out of their way to stick it to the other side.

so my opinion is this, grow the fark up. i like things that are illegal and other people do too, but quit farking whining when people have a problem with it because idiot farks use that thing that you like to do awful things. you may be responsible about your hobby, but if one can measure your sanity by gauging the shrillness of your defense then let me tell you, you're being unjustifiably traditional and unjustifiably ridiculous.

knight_on_the_rail:leadmetal: Bomb Head Mohammed: fullerton: meanwhile, three cars crashed at the car show. an airplane crashed at an air show and a marathon runner died running a marathon.

When I go fly aerobatics, I don't pretend its making my life safer. You pretend that guns do make your life safer. See the difference?

The problem is that people often feel this need to justify their choices. Those who want to restrict/control others often demand other people justify their choices. People need to just refuse to play this stupid game.

Aerobatic flying isn't exactly a common hobby and the airshow crashes are spread pretty far apart so there really isn't much in the way of calls to ban it and demanding people justify their hobby of aerobatic flying. However if control freaks were to set out to ban it people who enjoyed it would likely fall into the trap and try to justify it in some way. They might say it makes them safer pilots for normal flying or something should abnormal conditions arise. It's human nature. That's why that Morgan guy on CNN keeps demanding people tell him why they 'need' an AR-15. It's just social mind trick. It is to put the person who wants to keep doing whatever it is he enjoys on the defensive. Often to make him sound like a nutcase to all the people who aren't interested in that particular thing.

For instance, what if you were demanded to justify owning an automobile because someone in an organized race lost control and crashed into some spectators? Or because some illegal street racer plowed into a school bus. Or because some drunk driver killed a group of teenagers in another car? That's what ordinary gun owners are facing at the moment.

well yes, i demand that someone should justify owning a gun if they're in an organized gun race and they kill some spectators. or if an illegal gun racer shot up a school bus. or because a drunk gun owner killed a group of teenagers in another car. oh wait, cars have nothing to do with guns, and if you're using th ...

GUTSU:Haliburton Cummings: GUTSU: Are you suggesting that Obama didn't fight to be able to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial? Or are you under the delisoin that he bulldozed gitmo into the ground? Face it, the only thing Obama has going for him is his oratory skills, other than that he's a half-black bush.

i'm under a delisoin yes....

[i.imgur.com image 640x200]

It seems that you are unable to defeat my arguments, and instead have to attack my grammar. You aren't making a very strong case for yourself, comrade.

I own a a Ruger LCR 38. I keep it in my home for self defense. It is a serious tool for a serious purchase. I hope never to need it, but I have trained with it, and will use it, if necessary, with no regrets.

Beyond that, the whole fetishization of most of the gun culture is beyond ridiculous. I get that the USA was a frontier country where people used and needed guns for practical reasons. None of those reasons for over two centuries has been about rising up against tyrants. Life as a British colony for the most part was no great tyranny.

Much of the gun culture seems to be ingrained with the peculiar institution of slavery. It seems more about sustaining the memory of a culture that was the tyrant who needed to be overthrown by millions of Black Americans who were forbidden weapons, and forbidden the right to bear arms, and free themselves.

Confabulat:Gdalescrboz: Confabulat: What ARE you getting at? I am happily ignorant of guns for the most part, because my penis is of normal size....

I dont mind the "we should have tighter restrictions on guns" crowd. While I think they are for the most part farking idiots and naive, they compare not to the penis crowd. If your argument consists of talking about your dick, on any subject besides the size of your dick, you are automatically wrong

Good to hear you take penises so seriously.

You're the one who took penises to a whole new new level. You are the one bringing up dick size sherlock.

It doesn't mean you are admitting that all guns should be banned. It doesn't mean you are admitting that the NRA is really a Communist organization destined to destroy the USA. It doesn't mean you don't love the Constitution.

But seriously, you have to admit, as far as press goes for Gun Appreciation Day, this is not exactly how you wanted it to play out and it is just slightly humorous.

I've come to the conclusion that these gun nuts are something like PETA nuts: when discussing gunz, they have NO sense of humor. Not only is this not humorous, it's so unfunny, it was probably staged by the evil left to provide yet another excuse for grabbing their gunz.

It's like the time a friend of mine, a staunch animal rights activist, posted a veal-calf picture on her Facebook page, and I made some comment about how "It looks delicious!" and got a four paragraph message from some freak I didn't even know about how I was perpetuating cruelty to animals by my thoughtless and insensitive blah blah blah. I thought about sending her a Lighten Up Francis pic in return, but decided against it. It's the same thing here. These people couldn't see the humor in a situation if the gun in question had misfired and a little flag reading "BANG!" had popped out.

Huntceet:No Such Agency: brandent:Apparently you don't understand how a shotgun works. Hitting 3 people simultaneously is quite easy. Notice how it says two of them in the hand and one in the torso. Depending on the size of the "shot", several dozen bb sized....well bbs.... are ejected at high velocity and scatter out the end. The diameter of the pattern being directly related to the distance from the end of the barrel. If the people injured were 20 or 30 yards away standing in a group it is quite possible to hit several at once.

You mean a shotgun fires a bunch of bullets at once? Like an assault rifle? How are weapons like that even remotely legal? There's no way that's safe or legitimate for hunting or self defense. You could hit things you aren't even aiming at.

You don't know much about guns or hunting, do you. Maybe do a little studying on the internet.

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I could say the same thing about cars. Millions of people drive every day. How many fatal accidents are there per day? And there is a notable multiple more people who drive cars every day than shoot guns every day, so one could make the case that cars and guns are actually even at casualties by volume.

/Driver for 15 years//Never been in an accident, even a fender-bender///Doesn't mean I never will be, but it just goes to show you how much variance there is.

Too many comments to read them all. I was in line to get in when this happened (Raleigh show). I agree with everyone who said this should be a prosecutable offense. I don't think that anyone should be bringing their own guns to a show...but then you have to weigh that against the whole "no private sales to individuals" initiative.

The gun went off in the safety check where the zip tie is applied.

Some local reports indicate it was the retired deputy who was working security who discharged it.

Idiots should know to clear their weapons at home before putting them in the case.

spacelord321:HairBolus: whatshisname: Is there one person in line for that gun show who isn't morbidly obese?

Guns are the GREAT EQUALIZER. You don't have to be fit, athletic,or well coordinated to badly hurt or kill someone. Why go through all the hassle of say learning how to box and staying in shape when all you need is a twitch of your finger on the trigger.

Because you're too young, old, have a disability, or you realize a criminal with a gun can easily put a fit boxer in the grave. Don't confuse other peoples circumstances with your own.

Your thinking is why there are so many gun nut morons around who think that a gun will make them safe while without extensive training - it only makes them more dangerous both to themselves and others around them. A gun does not instantly turn somebody into a tough guy but it can instantly turn someone into a dangerous idiot.

No, you didn't. You were straight up comparing injuries from firearms to all motor vehicle collisions, whether an injury resulted or not. The most you did was acknowledge that firearm related events and motor vehicle collisions may differ in severity... but only after all your nonsensical and misleading approximations, and that was immediately followed by "I think my above assumptions are reasonable despite any of your criticisms". That is beyond an absurd comparison to make. You also did not take into consideration the survivability of injuries sustained in motor vehicle collisions, making any comparison (even between injuries[gun]:injuries[auto]) kind of useless anyway. But let's actually do a real comparison that is logically and mathematically valid and see what we get.

First, some definitions for the sake of clarity. "Motor vehicle collision" will be used because not all of them involve cars (e.g. tractor trailers), and not all of them are accidents (e.g. road rage incidents). So, for the sake of fairness, "firearm discharge" will be used because not all of them are accidents either.

From National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): About 2,500,000 people are injured in motor vehicle collisions per year. About 30,000 fatalities. Survivability rate of 99.9988%.From Firearm & Injury Center at University of Pennsylvania: There are about 100,000 people injured due to firearm discharges per year. About 30,000 fatalities. Survivability rate of 70%.

At the end of the year - or, more poignantly, at the end of every year - we have roughly the same number of fatalities for motor vehicle collisions as we do for firearm discharges, and the number of gun owners is roughly one-quarter the number of licensed drivers. And this is without taking into consideration the amount of time the objects are in use, which as you probably correctly assume is much lower for guns than for cars, making this comparison all the more shocking.

Keizer_Ghidorah:3StratMan: 3 idiots do something stupid with guns, therefore we should take away everyones right to own firearms?

Shiat, with that logic, we a should immediately take away everyone's right to vote after electing farkwads that spend the country into a $16 trillion dollar debt, happily guts our military into damn near laughing stock status, and pretty much spits on the constitution daily.

Oh wait, I forgot... It's OK, since it's YOUR guys doing it. And "but but but but Bush".

Maybe you could show us where and when Obama said he was taking away all guns from all Americans. I've seen you people constantly screaming this, but I've never been able to find it.

"But he'd never say it outright, he's planning to...", yes yes yes, and Elvis was really Bigfoot and he shot JFK before leaving with the Reptilians to Planet Ummo through the Bermuda Triangle.

Back again...

Obama? Did I say Obama? NO, I didn't farking say Obama! I was referring to most of the Left and a large majority of Farkers. Those are the ones who truly believe that no one in this country should be able to own firearms, for any reason. That is their wish, deep down, but that pesky little thing called "The Second Amendment" keeps them from getting their wish.

Not true, you say? Any true Liberal who says not true is a bold face liar. Just like the anti gun people who claim to be so concerned about wanting to protect our children in schools, yet their ONLY solution is to put more restrictions on guns. Armed guards in schools are not even discussed, or thought of as ridiculous, and serious mental health improvements are deemed too hard for a thousand different reasons. If you are not wanting to have every measure taken to prevent another Sandy Hook, and gun control is your only solution, then you're are a goddamned liar when you say you want to protect our children. I myself would have more respect for you if they would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should own them. I wouldn't agree with you, but at least you are being honest.

We allow everyone their rights even though a handful will always abuse them.

In this case it isn't abuse so much as accident.Millions of guns were being handled across the nation at thousands of events. The number of accidents is beyond insignificant.

/more people likely had traffic accidents on the way to the gun show./but since we aren't talking about car bans, we "allow" these incidents to happen.

If you really want to make an analogy to cars and car accidents (as so many gun rights people do), let's do that.

And let's start by pointing out that:1) In order to use a car, you have to be licensed by the government, certifying that you have been trained to use it, passing a government-administered test. This license must be renewed periodically.2) Every car you own and use must be registered with the government. This registration must be renewed periodically.3) Car drivers are required to show both their license an their registration when requested to do so by a police officer.4) The government mandates that you carry an insurance policy on each car you own and use, in the event that your car is involved in an accident and becomes damaged, or harms others and damages their property.5) the government requires that each car you have registered be pass an inspection periodically to ensure it is operating properly and meets government standards.

If you really want to say guns are no different than cars, fine. Let's start by putting these five things in place for guns. I think that would be a great thing. Then I will fully support your guns-cars analogy.

'Merica 4,000 babies aborted every day, where's the outrage and clamor for protection of THEM? 33 of them die each week in car accidents. If you're goal is to save lives, maybe you should aim at a bigger target like the side of a barn.

We allow everyone their rights even though a handful will always abuse them.

In this case it isn't abuse so much as accident.Millions of guns were being handled across the nation at thousands of events. The number of accidents is beyond insignificant.

/more people likely had traffic accidents on the way to the gun show./but since we aren't talking about car bans, we "allow" these incidents to happen.

If you really want to make an analogy to cars and car accidents (as so many gun rights people do), let's do that.

And let's start by pointing out that:1) In order to use a car, you have to be licensed by the government, certifying that you have been trained to use it, passing a government-administered test. This license must be renewed periodically.2) Every car you own and use must be registered with the government. This registration must be renewed periodically.3) Car drivers are required to show both their license an their registration when requested to do so by a police officer.4) The government mandates that you carry an insurance policy on each car you own and use, in the event that your car is involved in an accident and becomes damaged, or harms others and damages their property.5) the government requires that each car you have registered be pass an inspection periodically to ensure it is operating properly and meets government standards.

If you really want to say guns are no different than cars, fine. Let's start by putting these five things in place for guns. I think that would be a great thing. Then I will fully support your guns-cars analogy.

And yet the mentally ill criminals, with their illegally obtained guns, will STILL be killing people periodically like they are now. So what the fark will you have accomplished with all that?